RE: Kodak B&W Paper Discontinued

From: Don Bryant ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 07/13/05-03:48:42 PM Z
Message-id: <>


I hope you haven't written off TMAX 400. It's one of the finest B&W still
films, if not the finest B&W still film they make now.

And as far as I know no other manufacturer that makes a comparable product.

My 2 cents,

Don Bryant

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryuji Suzuki []
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 1:43 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Kodak B&W Paper Discontinued
> From: "Baird, Darryl" <>
> Subject: RE: Kodak B&W Paper Discontinued
> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:29:05 -0400
> > I would like to weigh in with a question - what products would be
> > desired, as a 'must-have' from Kodak? Could these products/materials
> > be revived by smaller, boutique-style manufacuers or are there other
> > problems involved that the scale and size of Kodak solved. Would
> > Kodak sell the patents?
> I hope Kodak continues to make all current b&w films. If not, I'd keep
> T-MAX 100, Tri-X and T-MAX P3200 and ditch others. (Though I love
> Plus-X a lot and I always stock several bricks in my fridge.) I don't
> need any Kodak processing chemicals. Regarding products useful for
> non-silver halide photography, I think all useful products from Kodak
> are gone already...
> It is unlikely that Kodak bothers to sell their patents when they
> discontinue some products. Color printing paper is still a viable
> market and at least Fujifilm is still putting a significant research
> into it. It's hard to know which of older patents are useful later in
> court when there is a dispute for current products.
> Also, buying Kodak patents is not going to enable a small company to
> produce Kodak-quality films. Kodak products depend on not only Kodak
> inventions but also inventions by others and they have mutual
> licensing agreements. Also, patents are required to disclose the best
> mode of implementation of the invention known to the inventor but they
> are very often very short in this aspect, and also they are by no
> means required to disclose the best product design utilizing the
> invention. That is, patent may give you some information but it is not
> enough to make a product. Much of important information is kept
> proprietary.
> From: BOB KISS <>
> Subject: RE:Just the facts, Ma'am, Just the facts... Kodak B&W Paper
> Discontinued
> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:45:13 -0300
> > 2) Kentmere has introduced their own fine art silver/gelatin papers
> > and are doing a BIG advertising push. All this while we are hearing
> > of implosions from Kodak, Ilford, etc., etc!
> Paper is significantly low tech compared to the latest films and
> smaller companies may be able to do fine job.
> > 3) Bergger has given us something close to Super XX.
> > What does this tell us?
> Bergger BPF 200 is nothing like Super XX. For example, compare gamma
> infinity. I think the similarity is limited to the nominal speed and
> the rest of the story was a marketing gimmick.
> > 3) The smaller manufacturers are not producing mass market QUALITY
> > items...they are going for US...the fine art high end market.
> When shopping for films, I always pay attention to the film base
> material. For b&w still photography films, I would not consider
> triacetate films. Archival storage of triacetate (TAC) films is a lot
> more pain in the azz than later polyester (PET and PEN) films though
> TAC film is still made and used. Films using PET and PEN are
> technically a lot more demanding to manufacture, but they provide good
> dimensional stability, good archival property without worrying about
> too many variables during storage. PEN (A-PEN) is the most advanced
> film base material that offers the stability of PET without its
> strong curling tendency, which is very useful for roll formats and
> 35mm. It was one of the new technology introduced with the notorious
> APS system.
> I do want all these benefits from recent technological advancement and
> the only way I can see to get them is to support existing, viable
> companies that can adapt to the changing market. I don't care if I
> have to bulk purchase direct from the manufacturer once a year. I
> don't care if the product comes in plain white box without any fancy
> printing. But I do care for good image permanence and other aspects of
> fine quality b&w films.
Received on Wed Jul 13 15:48:50 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 08/25/05-05:31:51 PM Z CST